New research findings and 3 important takeaways for bully prevention
New research on bullying is published so quickly it’s hard to stay current with recent findings. But at the same time we’re already seeing an epidemic of so-called “bullying prevention programs” flooding the market.
Latest reports [Farrington and Ttofi] reveal that – at best -only about one fourth of those “bully prevention” programs are effective in reducing bullying behaviors and attitudes in our schools.
That doesn’t imply that bullying can’t be reduced – after all, bullying is a learned behavior so it can be unlearned.
What it does mean that we need to become far better consumers in purchasing and implementing “anti-bullying curriculums” so we do ensure that those programs, policies, and practices that we do adopt will work with our children.
That’s why I urge you to review the new research by the University of British Columbia – and particularly review three points that are my take-aways from this important work.
Then please pass this information on to your colleagues and discuss it or review these points with your children.
3 Take-Aways for Bullying Prevention
1. Most students do not equate cyberbullying with traditional forms of schoolyard bullying.
Lesson: Don’t assume the interventions you are implementing to stop bullying will apply to online bullying.
2. Most students (95%) say that bullying that happens online is intended as a “joke” that should not be taken seriously. (Hmmmm)
Lesson: Youth are underestimating the level of harm associated with cyberbullying. We need to nail down the point to them: “Verbal and written bullying – online or off – is hurtful, emotionally damaging and is NO joke.”
3. Teens who cyberbully play multiple roles – as bullies, victims and witnesses. The traditional definition and characteristics of bullying (a power imbalance, repetition, intent to harm) may not apply to online bullying and need further review.
Lesson: Traditional bullying prevention programs aimed only at one role may not work at reducing online bullying. We may need to rethink our definition of bullying so it applies to cyber-attacks – or use two different definitions – online/offline so all stakeholders are clear as to our expectations.
Here is the University of British Columbia research published April 13, 2012.
University of British Columbia Findings on Bullying
University of British Columbia research comparing traditional bullying with cyberbullying finds that the dynamics of online bullying are different, suggesting that anti-bullying programs need specific interventions to target online aggression.
“There are currently many programs aimed at reducing bullying in schools and I think there is an assumption that these programs deal with cyberbullying as well,” says Jennifer Shapka, an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at UBC who is presenting this research at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting in Vancouver.
“What we’re seeing is that kids don’t equate cyberbullying with traditional forms of schoolyard bullying. As such, we shouldn’t assume that existing interventions will be relevant to aggression that is happening online.”
Shapka is presenting a study that involved 17,000 Vancouver, B.C. students in Grades 8 to 12 and a follow-up study involving 733 Vancouver, B.C. youth aged 10-18.
Results of the studies show that about 25-30 per cent of youth report that they have experienced or taken part in cyberbullying, compared to 12 per cent of youth who say they’ve experienced or taken part in schoolyard bullying. However:
“Youth say that 95 per cent of what happens online was intended as a joke and only 5 per cent was intended to harm. It is clear that youth are underestimating the level of harm associated with cyberbullying,” says Shapka.
According to Shapka, the findings suggest that in cyberbullying adolescents play multiple roles – as bullies, victims, and witnesses – and “downplay the impact of it, which means that existing education and prevention programs are not going to get through to them.”
“Students need to be educated that this ‘just joking’ behaviour has serious implications.”
Being victimized online can have consequences for a person’s mental health, developmental wellbeing, and academic achievement, according to Shapka. In extreme cases, there have been reports of suicide.
Traditional bullying, or schoolyard bullying, is often associated with three main characteristics: a power differential between bully and victim, a proactive targeting of a victim, and ongoing aggression.
Shapka says, research is beginning to show that cyberbullying does not necessarily involve these three characteristics. Traditional power differentials – size and popularity – do not necessarily apply online.
There also seems to be more fluid delineation between the roles youth play; it is not unusual for an individual to act in all capacities – bullies, victims, and witnesses – online.
Previous work by Shapka and her colleagues has shown that in contrast to traditional bullying, cyberbullying is rarely associated with planned targeting of a victim.
A number of Internet safety campaigns suggest parents keep an eye on their children’s online activity but Shapka says this kind of micro-managing can undermine healthy adolescent development.
“An open and honest relationship between parents and children is one of the best ways to protect teenagers from online risks related to cyberbullying, Internet addiction, and privacy concerns related to disclosing personal information online.”